OT: The President has signed into law the Protection of Monsanto

[gurneyhalleck1]

I smell Troll

Not at all. Our Nation was founded on sacrificing self interest, in favor of the whole. She has demonstrated not being aware of any of that.

 

[Knee V]

I've talked a little with Bluhd in GT et al. Perhaps he's not used to how we roll in TAW, but he's alright.

 

[MKJ]

There is a history of the kid gloves used with Monsanto over the years, and the way things work in the US.

Here is an example (there are many more, of course):
How Monsanto outfoxed the Obama administration - Salon.com

The OP included conclusions drawn from this understanding. See this analysis:
IPS – Secretive U.S. Amendment Would Weaken Biotech Oversight | Inter Press Service

Again, look at the analysis and historically the "way things play out" in the US, especially of late. Sure, the language is "homey" and tends in one direction - but given the history and the way the legislative/legal system works in the US, it's not the way things appear to be that is the concern.

And do consider this:

Why is it, in spite of promises and public outcry, that GMO food is not labelled ?

If this rider is about protecting farmers, why only some farmers ?


See the Salon article.

And it doesn't take the motive to destroy something to destroy something.

Look at the labeling issue history in the US over RgBH (not allowed in Canada, btw).

Could be. Or could be they know the history and the way things work here.

(Ironically, ask farmers how civil Monsanto is when they "disagree" with farmers.)

Then we should for sure move beyond a shallow look.

Don't stoop. But do dig - again, into the history of this issue and similar in US history.

You're totally missing the point. None of these things are talking about what the legislation which was posted in the OP actually said. You can post a whole history of bad things that Monsanto or the government has done, and they could be true, but they will be irrelevant to the point I made, and the links that gzt posted made.

The nature of the legislation was misrepresented in the OP.

It could be all part of an evil plot. THat does not mean that is says, or legally means, something different than what the law states.

I would suggest that it is not, in fact, part of a plot. It is not that the people at Monsanto are inhuman monsters who want to destroy the world, and the government wants to help them.

Very likely, many of the people there think GMOs are a good thing, or at least not a really harmful thing if done properly. This is something that reasonable people can take different perspectives on.

As far as the behavior of the organization itself, it is doing precisely what a company in our system is supposed to do - make as much money as possible, control as much of the market as possible, work against its competitors as efficiently as it can, grow as large as it can, and lobby government for regulations that are to its advantage and against ones that are disadvantageous to it.

And the government, in its turn, is doing just what your laws and values and principles say it needs to - people wanted to get voted in, they have to do certain things for that, money is free speech and everyone thinks that the economic success of the nation, and therefore its power on the world stage, is linked to the success of the large corporations.

It is not a conspiracy of people out to do harm, it is people working with the systems and values the nation has given them in a pretty predictable way.

Here is the thing - if it is a secret conspiracy of the evil, then it is about alien values and the institutions being subverted, and so you can rail against Monsanto and how greedy the political leaders you have seem, and nothing will change. If it is really about your systems and values, then the fundamental building blocks of the nation - founding principles and political/economic institutions - and for some reason people seem to find that really scary, perhaps because it means really examining their own values.

 

[Dorothea]

Of course those working at Monsanto thinking they're doing a good thing for people - feeding third-world countries, etc. One of my friend's husband is in the science field and works with this stuff and doesn't believe people or animals or anything gets sick from GMOs. She also thinks organic foods are "junk."

I obviously disagree. Many of the rich banking folks think they're doing the right thing, too.

 

[MKJ]

Of course those working at Monsanto thinking they're doing a good thing for people - feeding third-world countries, etc. One of my friend's husband is in the science field and works with this stuff and doesn't believe people or animals or anything gets sick from GMOs. She also thinks organic foods are "junk."

I obviously disagree. Many of the rich banking folks think they're doing the right thing, too.

Sure they do.

But there is a tendency to want to characterize them as evil, and I see it a lot in the left media, just as the right wants to say that people on the left like to kill babies or destroy the economy, or let seals take over the world.

I guess that is a human tendency, but it also means that we don't have to be careful to really look at what we are disagreeing about. If it is totally obvious to any nit-wit that GM foods are bad, then we can only conclude that those who disagree are evil somehow.

On the other hand, if intelligent people can really think that, perhaps we could be the ones who are wrong, or possibly wrong, or not seeing the whole picture. In any case, we would have to show respect for them in the discussion.

If we respect them, then we need to look closely at what is being said and understand it accurately, before we try and fit it into some sort of preconceived idea of what is going on.

(And even if we don't care about respect, trying to fit new information into a preconceived pattern instead of looking closely at what it means on its own terms first is one of the best ways to go really wrong in analyzing information.)

Really, if we are correct about the pattern, looking at and reporting new information accurately will not compromise that.

 

[Dorothea]

Sure they do.

But there is a tendency to want to characterize them as evil, and I see it a lot in the left media, just as the right wants to say that people on the left like to kill babies or destroy the economy, or let seals take over the world.

I guess that is a human tendency, but it also means that we don't have to be careful to really look at what we are disagreeing about. If it is totally obvious to any nit-wit that GM foods are bad, then we can only conclude that those who disagree are evil somehow.

On the other hand, if intelligent people can really think that, perhaps we could be the ones who are wrong, or possibly wrong, or not seeing the whole picture. In any case, we would have to show respect for them in the discussion.

If we respect them, then we need to look closely at what is being said and understand it accurately, before we try and fit it into some sort of preconceived idea of what is going on.

(And even if we don't care about respect, trying to fit new information into a preconceived pattern instead of looking closely at what it means on its own terms first is one of the best ways to go really wrong in analyzing information.)

Really, if we are correct about the pattern, looking at and reporting new information accurately will not compromise that.

I don't think any person is evil. I believe people can do evil things and can be in bondage to the enemy, and it's usually without they're realizing it.

 

[Thekla]

You're totally missing the point. None of these things are talking about what the legislation which was posted in the OP actually said. You can post a whole history of bad things that Monsanto or the government has done, and they could be true, but they will be irrelevant to the point I made, and the links that gzt posted made.

The nature of the legislation was misrepresented in the OP.

It could be all part of an evil plot. THat does not mean that is says, or legally means, something different than what the law states.

But, as the critique noted, it is how the law works and how the law can be used; ie we should be vigilant based on experience and see the larger picture.

So all we can do is watch, to see how this is used in the future, if and when it is used as a precedent.

I do think it's related to fast-tracking alfalfa and sugar beet.

In this country, you can't just look at legislation for what it says. (Or, was the 14th amendment really meant to give constitutional protection to corporations right to free speech and campaign contributions ?)

I would suggest that it is not, in fact, part of a plot. It is not that the people at Monsanto are inhuman monsters who want to destroy the world, and the government wants to help them.

I didn't get the sense from the OP that this is an "evil plot", or that people at Monsanto are "evil".

I also know that neither of these are necessary for bad outcomes to occur.

I don't think the decision not to regulate the derivatives markets, to gut mortgage writing requirements, to not staff the SEC, deregulation (including of the commodities market) etc. were part of an "evil plot" either. I think they reflect a mindset, a worldview. See how that ended up, minus an "evil plot".

Same thing in the bookselling and publishing sector, as well as major media -- no evil plot, just a mindset (as in the financial sector) guided by the principles of maximizing market share and profit. Same outcome.

Very likely, many of the people there think GMOs are a good thing, or at least not a really harmful thing if done properly. This is something that reasonable people can take different perspectives on.

Sure, and reasonable people have different mindsets. Lots of things sound good, seem good to those involved, but humans are lousy at considering long-term consequences.

Please consider the larger picture - monopolization, the effects of monoculture, the expense of using patented seed and tech, nutritional quality, soil composition (microorganism composition count in gm vs. conventional vs. organic and nutriment uptake and nitrogen fixing), required amendments for gm (vs. conventional and organic) crops and their expense, the effect of pollen drift (monoculture in general and gm in particular) on biodiversity, superweeds (effect on gm crop and development as well as spread to other croplands), etc.

Then look at the history of how the science works; which of these areas were part of the research concern in gm from the start. Were these and other considerations part of the work in gm development ?

What other methods were seriously researched/tried/considered before settling on gene-spling, etc.

As far as the behavior of the organization itself, it is doing precisely what a company in our system is supposed to do - make as much money as possible, control as much of the market as possible, work against its competitors as efficiently as it can, grow as large as it can, and lobby government for regulations that are to its advantage and against ones that are disadvantageous to it.

Yup.

What about the cost/s of this desire ? We have several templates to look at - financial sector, media/publishing, globalization, etc.

And the government, in its turn, is doing just what your laws and values and principles say it needs to - people wanted to get voted in, they have to do certain things for that, money is free speech and everyone thinks that the economic success of the nation, and therefore its power on the world stage, is linked to the success of the large corporations.

Not everyone, no.

It is not a conspiracy of people out to do harm, it is people working with the systems and values the nation has given them in a pretty predictable way.

Yup. that doesn't make it good.

Here is the thing - if it is a secret conspiracy of the evil, then it is about alien values and the institutions being subverted, and so you can rail against Monsanto and how greedy the political leaders you have seem, and nothing will change. If it is really about your systems and values, then the fundamental building blocks of the nation - founding principles and political/economic institutions - and for some reason people seem to find that really scary, perhaps because it means really examining their own values.

Yes, we do need to examine it - remember, that's what movements like the Tea Party (initially) and Occupy were 'about'.

You do need to realize that citizen persons in the US have less of a voice than corporate persons.

 

[MariaRegina]

fast-tracking alfalfa and sugar beet -- these GMO products will devastate our planet.

Lord have mercy.

Sugar beets are used to color foods as well to sweeten them.
Alfalfa is fed to almost all farm animals from chickens to cattle, horses, goats, and sheep.
All our milk, milk, and eggs will be contaminated.

Only the wealthy will be able to buy organic.

SHAME. SHAME. SHAME.

I just finished rereading That Hideous Strength, and I have got to tell you that C.S. Lewis is correct. Could it be that the Monsanto-Dole-FDA-Military Defense-Pharmaceutical cabal does not care if they destroy the earth?

 

[MariaRegina]

MKJ, There is also the tendency to not see evil, and not hear evil.

However, we must be realistic. The devil, like a roaring lion roams about the world seeking whom he may devour (Epistle of St. Peter). This Satan is the first conspirator, successfully tempting Eve and then Adam to disobey the directive of Christ God in the Garden of Eden.

Nevertheless, this Angel of Light has NOT stopped his nefarious activities, but has been continually directing and leading men into Hell since the beginning of creation.

We must realize that this demonic conspiracy will be with us until the end of the world, until Christ comes again. Then and only then, will this Demonic conspiracy be stopped, with Satan and his hordes being damned forever in hell.

Have you read That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis. If you had read the preface by Lewis, then you would realize that it is not just a theological fantasy, but a WARNING. N.I.C.E. is present in the world today under different names, purporting to do good while secretly spreading evil and corruption.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

E-waste, another important issue which isn't often publicized -- and a huge problem. It took public pressure (and who knows what behind the scenes) to effect small changes in manufacturing, and even these don't address much of the existing and developing problem. In short, if we don't "see it", it's not a problem.


.

Ironically, as much as addressing Monsanto can make a difference, the sad reality is that there are other events taking place with E-Waste that actually help to bring about the same reality with food corruption. For consumer electronics e-waste contains highly toxic carcinogenic substances that can contaminate our food and water supply...and that is directly responsible for many health issues we're seeing in our land/that of others due to the build-up.

China’s E-Scrap Nightmare Just Isn’t What It Used to Be.

2007: The Year of the Recall: An Examination of Children’s Product Recalls in 2007 and the Implications for Child Safety, Kids in Danger, February 2008 -www.kidsindanger.org/publications/reports/2008_Year_of_the_recall.pdf

“Blood Lead Levels in Children In the United States,” Scorecard.org – www.scorecard.org/env-releases/def/lead_blood_levels.html

Huo, Xia; et al. “Elevated Blood Lead Levels of Children in Guiyu, an Electronic Waste Recycling Town in China,” Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 115, Number 7, July 2007 -
www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/9697/abstract.html

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, “Known and Suspected Routes of E-Waste Dumping” -
www.etoxics.org/site/PageServer?pagename=svtc_ewaste_destinations

Weidenhamer, Jeffrey D. and Michael L. Clement. “Leaded Electronic Waste Is a Possible Source Material for Lead-Contaminated Jewelry,” Chemosphere Volume 69, Issue 7, October 2007, Pages 1111-1115
/www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V74-4NTHMY2-2&_user=38557&_rdoc=1&_fmt=
&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=
38557&md5=816addc55163dd6b2caddcd1376b06f2

​

We must begin having a holistic perspective once again...

The less stringent pollution laws in other countries was a driver in globalization. (Consider the maquiladoras for example ...)

True..

In other places where there's less coverage and essentially a choosing of dumping materials into other places that are not as policed, it leads to devestation. Van Jones noted it well when discussing the ways that "improvement of the community" is often a matter of environmental apartheid where other groups foot the bill of what we spent in one place - and yet we never seek benefits for all groups:

GREEN JOBS NOT JAILS - The Third Wave of Environmentalism

And Majora Carter also did a wonderful job showing the ways that others often put price as a standard for not intervening when the reality is that it costs MORE for others to avoid finding ways of helping others sustainably:

Honors Colloquium: "Green the Ghetto and How Much It Won't Cost Us"

Another forgotten problem -- don't know if you recall, but Disney subcontractors were paying miserably low wages in Haiti. There was a campaign to raise wages there (1.00 a day more iirc.). Disney balked, and contracted subcontractors elsewhere, resulting in unemployment and still ridiculously low wages.

Ironically, 'saving money' by buying cheap overseas products is linked to some extent to the erosion of wages stateside -- people are forced into buying overseas 'stuff' because they can't afford US made items.

Had no idea DIsney was doing that - although I am aware of where Disney has been VERY corrupt in differing areas...and some of the corruption has shocked me. WIth them denying workers in Hati, I have no doubt that support for doing so probably came in one sense by making it out as if they're already being "taken care of" by others and that others need to work harder.

But sadly, not many will follow the Bread-Crumb trail and see the ways it hurts us in the U.S even when we seek to hurt others and think we'll stay afloat..

Consumerism (wasn't it estimated the US uses 25% of global resources ?) has become a global problem on many fronts.

Indeed..

exactly the case

You'd be surprised how many people would be called "crazy" or "radical" simply for saying what you gave a thumbs up to.

Amazing.

I don't know that there was much awareness -- recall, at the beginning of the Iraq war how many didn't know where Iraq was located. Then also, our media has long ago ceased to engage in much investigative journalism. (Don't know if you recall the Fox News/RgBH reporting scandal ...)

The Fox News scandal was a trip...but I can see how simply having some facts on an area doesn't equate to awareness on the issue of what happens there.

Yup - I think that's typically the case.
But then, there are also counter-examples; like elements of the Tea Party and Occupy working together where they have common concerns and goals. But we're a "team" culture - and this division does work against us.

Ironically, even with Tea Party and Occupy working together, that can be planned out to the point where their goals may be good - but the ways they go about it allow for the opposition to get away with things and get more distractions.

We're definately a "team" culture - even when there are times all the teams being formed don't know that they may be getting played in the process..

It's the same in both cases. A decade or so ago, small manufacturers were trying to source long-fiber organic cotton from coca farmers, so that farmers south of the US would be able to support their families without turning to coca. I'm not sure this program went very far, but at least the Fair Trade mvmt. seems to have made some headway (though I doubt it's pristine).

I remember covering some of this for a paper I had to do in Graduate School - as some of those programs have paid off with Fair Trade...but they need more funding and awareness.

But all of this does point to the need for (in Orthodox terminology) "right use". The further our culture gets from the sense of the holy (and right-use of holy things, even icons and holy water), and acknowledgment that everything we have, even life, is a gift from God - the more things go awry and the more selfish, cut-off, and destructive we become

So true, sis.

 

[MKJ]

Look, I am just going to say this, and then I will bow out:

the bigger picture is not the point. I am not talking about the big picture.

The big picture does not mean it is ok to misrepresent, lie, or fail to bother to really consider what is actually being said.

Almost every site I have seen is misrepresenting this legislation. That is wrong.

If nothing else, people should think it is counter-productive, as many people will dismiss your thoughts about the big picture as self-serving lies if they see you misrepresenting items like this.

And please stop trying to convince me that there is something wrong going on with GMOs or politics. I think there is something wrong with both, as I have said any number of times here.

I do not think it is right or useful to misrepresent facts to make your own interpretation of the big-picture seem more plausible; and I think that making fun of someone like gzt because he bothered to correct that misrepresentation, as if he were a moron who cannot get what it is all really about, is really, really wrong.

 

[Thekla]

Look, I am just going to say this, and then I will bow out:

the bigger picture is not the point. I am not talking about the big picture.

The big picture does not mean it is ok to misrepresent, lie, or fail to bother to really consider what is actually being said.

Almost every site I have seen is misrepresenting this legislation. That is wrong.

If nothing else, people should think it is counter-productive, as many people will dismiss your thoughts about the big picture as self-serving lies if they see you misrepresenting items like this.

And please stop trying to convince me that there is something wrong going on with GMOs or politics. I think there is something wrong with both, as I have said any number of times here.

I do not think it is right or useful to misrepresent facts to make your own interpretation of the big-picture seem more plausible; and I think that making fun of someone like gzt because he bothered to correct that misrepresentation, as if he were a moron who cannot get what it is all really about, is really, really wrong.

I don't want to belabor the point either, and wish I hadn't come into this thread.

And I fully agree with your central value -- that distorting facts undermines one's voice.

Otoh, the rider does protect the planting of crops that have not been vetted by the approval process. It usurps the system we do have in place (no matter how flawed or good that system is.

It sets a precedent, and in this country that is all that is needed.

The OP uses language that you find disgreeable, I understand.

Monster (as I read it) is indicative of size as in monstrous (and there is precedent since at least Nash for the use of like terms).

That Monsanto has used the legal system to bully small farmers is a matter of public record; farmers in this country have been driven out of business by legal fees defending themselves from Monsanto even when they have been found not in abrogation of the law.

Its a powerful corporation with huge influence; that in itself is neither here nor there. Their track record, and the analysis of the rider, is.

 

[MKJ]

I don't want to belabor the point either, and wish I hadn't come into this thread.

And I fully agree with your central value -- that distorting facts undermines one's voice.

Otoh, the rider does protect the planting of crops that have not been vetted by the approval process. It usurps the system we do have in place (no matter how flawed or good that system is.

It sets a precedent, and in this country that is all that is needed.

The OP uses language that you find disgreeable, I understand.

Monster (as I read it) is indicative of size as in monstrous (and there is precedent since at least Nash for the use of like terms).

That Monsanto has used the legal system to bully small farmers is a matter of public record; farmers in this country have been driven out of business by legal fees defending themselves from Monsanto even when they have been found not in abrogation of the law.

Its a powerful corporation with huge influence; that in itself is neither here nor there. Their track record, and the analysis of the rider, is.

My understanding is that it does not allow unvetted crops to be planted or protected - that is what is being inaccurately reported.

It applies when a crop has been approved, and then planted by someone, and then the approval is revoked or being subject to further examination.

In that case, the farmer can get a temporary permit for the crop which will apply only to what has already been planted by that farmer, and possibly requiring some sort of safety measures. And potentially it might not be granted at all.

This seems to me to be quite different than what is being reported in most sources, not just a matter of different language.

 

[Dorothea]

But, as the critique noted, it is how the law works and how the law can be used; ie we should be vigilant based on experience and see the larger picture.

So all we can do is watch, to see how this is used in the future, if and when it is used as a precedent.

I do think it's related to fast-tracking alfalfa and sugar beet.

In this country, you can't just look at legislation for what it says. (Or, was the 14th amendment really meant to give constitutional protection to corporations right to free speech and campaign contributions ?)





I didn't get the sense from the OP that this is an "evil plot", or that people at Monsanto are "evil".

I also know that neither of these are necessary for bad outcomes to occur.

I don't think the decision not to regulate the derivatives markets, to gut mortgage writing requirements, to not staff the SEC, deregulation (including of the commodities market) etc. were part of an "evil plot" either. I think they reflect a mindset, a worldview. See how that ended up, minus an "evil plot".

Same thing in the bookselling and publishing sector, as well as major media -- no evil plot, just a mindset (as in the financial sector) guided by the principles of maximizing market share and profit. Same outcome.



Sure, and reasonable people have different mindsets. Lots of things sound good, seem good to those involved, but humans are lousy at considering long-term consequences.

Please consider the larger picture - monopolization, the effects of monoculture, the expense of using patented seed and tech, nutritional quality, soil composition (microorganism composition count in gm vs. conventional vs. organic and nutriment uptake and nitrogen fixing), required amendments for gm (vs. conventional and organic) crops and their expense, the effect of pollen drift (monoculture in general and gm in particular) on biodiversity, superweeds (effect on gm crop and development as well as spread to other croplands), etc.

Then look at the history of how the science works; which of these areas were part of the research concern in gm from the start. Were these and other considerations part of the work in gm development ?

What other methods were seriously researched/tried/considered before settling on gene-spling, etc.



Yup.

What about the cost/s of this desire ? We have several templates to look at - financial sector, media/publishing, globalization, etc.



Not everyone, no.



Yup. that doesn't make it good.



Yes, we do need to examine it - remember, that's what movements like the Tea Party (initially) and Occupy were 'about'.

You do need to realize that citizen persons in the US have less of a voice than corporate persons.

 

[Dorothea]

fast-tracking alfalfa and sugar beet -- these GMO products will devastate our planet.

Lord have mercy.

Sugar beets are used to color foods as well to sweeten them.
Alfalfa is fed to almost all farm animals from chickens to cattle, horses, goats, and sheep.
All our milk, milk, and eggs will be contaminated.

Only the wealthy will be able to buy organic.

SHAME. SHAME. SHAME.

I just finished rereading That Hideous Strength, and I have got to tell you that C.S. Lewis is correct. Could it be that the Monsanto-Dole-FDA-Military Defense-Pharmaceutical cabal does not care if they destroy the earth?

Do they even think about that?

 

[Thekla]

My understanding is that it does not allow unvetted crops to be planted or protected - that is what is being inaccurately reported.

It is a multi-step process; fast-tracked crops can be withdrawn if found to be harmful. The system at present allows for a two step process - the second phase is what is undermined. It also raises the issue of a finding of improper first step vetting; ie even if the approval has been illegal, the crop still stands. This undermines the first step, and circumvents the judicial system's role altogether.

It applies when a crop has been approved, and then planted by someone, and then the approval is revoked or being subject to further examination.

Yes, but given the fast-tracking it is especially dangerous.
It also prefers gm farmers over conventional and organic; pollen drift is a real concern for these farmers for many reasons.

In that case, the farmer can get a temporary permit for the crop which will apply only to what has already been planted by that farmer, and possibly requiring some sort of safety measures. And potentially it might not be granted at all.

It's parallel to allowing the continued sale til supplies are exhausted of a drug found to have bad results. And, as we move into gm pharm crop, this is worrisome. (Some crops are registered not as food, but as pesticides iirc; I don't know how gm pharm crops might be registered for regulation.)

In the case of fast-tracking (as with alfalfa and sugar beet), appropriate testing and vetting has not been performed. The pollen drift problem has not been solved with existing gm crops; where testing is incomplete this is more troublesome. (This problem is one of the issues w/ inadequate testing in the first place; the estimated drift risk submitted for crop approval has been far short of actual field evidence.)

This seems to me to be quite different than what is being reported in most sources, not just a matter of different language.

Once again, it is the track record for how laws are used in this country and the reality of what has happened with Monsanto specifically that informs the reporting. There is the theory of how things work, and the empirical evidence of how things actually happen. The law itself contains embedded risks, which any payroll lawyer might be willing to exploit. As with the 14th amendment, it is the unintended consequences of the loopholes which have historically distorted any law in this country. And we are a nation that is run as much if not more on the loopholes ...

 

[Thekla]

This should help to explain why the rider is a problem, and why the descriptions seem to exceed the language of the rider:

THE DETAILS: This is the third go-round with GE sugar beets at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The crop was first approved in 2005, but in 2009, a federal judge in California ruled that the USDA had failed to adequately assess GE sugar beets' impacts on other crops, namely chard and table beets, which are in the same plant family as sugar beets. As a result, the USDA agreed to do a proper environmental impact study, but in the meantime, fought the judge's decision that GE sugar beets couldn't be planted. The agency ultimately lost in August 2010, and the court ruled that it was illegal to plant GE sugar beets before the assessment was complete. However, the next month the USDA circumvented that ruling and announced that it would issue permits for farmers to plant the crop, provided it didn't flower, which would essentially allow GE sugar beets to be prepped for spring planting. The following December, the same judge ruled that that was illegal and ordered all fall plantings to be destroyed. The USDA appealed that decision, and the GE sugar beets remain in storage, ready to be planted in spring, should the agency finally issue an approval for the crops. And that is widely expected to happen this week.

WHAT IT MEANS: As with any GMO crop, the approval of GE sugar beets could prove damaging for organic farmers. Much of the GE sugar beet production occurs in the Willamette Valley in Oregon, which is also a major seed-producing region for Swiss chard and table beets (table beets are the beets you eat; sugar beets are used for sugar production and to make ethanol fuel). Because the three crops are in the same family, it's very easy for GE sugar beets to contaminate the other crops, along with other non-GE sugar beets, says George Kimbrell, senior attorney at the Center for Food Safety, which was involved in both lawsuits trying to keep the USDA from approving the use of sugar beets. Sugar beets are wind-pollinated crops, and the pollen can spread up to six miles, possibly farther, depending on the winds. The problem of contamination was the primary reason the California judge kept challenging the USDA's approval. In his December ruling, the judge noted that containment efforts for preventing cross-contamination of non-GM sugar beets were insufficient, and said that contamination incidents were "too numerous" to allow continued planting of the illegal crop.

"This is a very invasive thing," Kimbrell says. "Once it happens, especially in seed crops, there's a fundamental loss of [consumer] choice and a loss of farmers' reputations." He adds that farmers there have already seen their customers turn to other areas of the country, "because people see the Willamette Valley as a place filled with the risk of contamination." Organic farmers in the area are under greater financial burden to conduct DNA testing on their crops, without which they could risk losing the national organic certification. "This is a serious, continuing problem," he says.

You can read the complete article here:
USDA to Approve the Next Gene-Altered Crop | Rodale News

Imo, this rider was "all about" gmo sugar beet and gmo alfalfa; the rider circumvents the testing process and the judicial system and makes the crop planting the de facto test/trial. And a mistake at this level has far reaching consequences for the farmers the bill very clearly does not protect (conventional and organic farmers, who theoretically stand to lose out in perpetuity from one instance of pollen contamination).

The rider also sets precedent for testing; ie, these crops were fast-tracked. Once fast-tracking approval is done once, and protected, and the judicial level overturned there is the real potential that fast-tracking and concomitant crop protection will become the norm. That is the way things are done in the US.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

yep. it's just how I feel, man

Understandable - and I can respect it. Wouldn't be the same without ya, Bruh, if you left since it keeps things fresh

 

[MariaRegina]

This should help to explain why the rider is a problem, and why the descriptions seem to exceed the language of the rider:


You can read the complete article here:
USDA to Approve the Next Gene-Altered Crop | Rodale News

Imo, this rider was "all about" gmo sugar beet and gmo alfalfa; the rider circumvents the testing process and the judicial system and makes the crop planting the de facto test/trial. And a mistake at this level has far reaching consequences for the farmers the bill very clearly does not protect (conventional and organic farmers, who theoretically stand to lose out in perpetuity from one instance of pollen contamination).

The rider also sets precedent for testing; ie, these crops were fast-tracked. Once fast-tracking approval is done once, and protected, and the judicial level overturned there is the real potential that fast-tracking and concomitant crop protection will become the norm. That is the way things are done in the US.

Thanks for posting this, Thekla.

This N.I.C.E.-USA conglomerate is accomplishing its objective. As in That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis, NICE is not so nice. NICE = National Industrial Commercial Experiments, which consists of the FDA, USDA, Monsanto, Dole, Military Industrial Complex, and Pharmaceutical companies. We the people are being used as their guinea pigs.

 

[MariaRegina]

The problem in the US is also, in part, to paint as merely partisan and/or conspiratorial anyone who criticizes 'sacred cows'. Aka rename (bleeding heart, communist, fascist, hippy, right-winger, etc.) and marginalize any critics. It's a time honored tradition here.

And also the way the legal system works (or does not) is how the status quo is created and maintained; as before, the depth of the legal (and lobbying) war chest determines the outcome. (The fate of the state of VT's GMO labeling law is instructive.)

The law will protect Monsanto - those farmers who possibly would have been sued would sue the patent owner.

It also opens the possibility that non-GMO farmers whose crops are affected by GMO drift (and potentially super-weeds) have less opportunity/likelihood of/for redress.

Did anyone read what Monsanto did to Whole Foods Market. WFM was sued by Monsanto because Whole Foods had claimed that they did not carry any GMOs in the products sold in their stores. Monsanto knew otherwise, demanded the processed foods be checked, and sure enough Monsanto scientists found GMO products in many processed foods sold at Whole Foods that uneducated non-conspiracy minded people were eating.

That is why Whole Foods Market has decided to have mandatory labeling of all its products sold at their stores within five years. This is good. It will require all manufacturers to certify that there are or are not any GMO ingredients in their processed foods.